From the California Highway Patrol:
MARTINEZ, CA – The Contra Costa Area office of the California Highway Patrol will be conducting a “Sobriety Checkpoint” on Friday, August 02, 2019, in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. This safety event will be conducted from 9PM to 2AM.
Traffic volume permitting, all vehicles will be checked, and drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs can expect to be arrested.
Remember that DUI does not just mean alcohol.
The event is part of the “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over Campaign.” Funding for this program is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
“”Your papers, please!”
Papiere, bitte! What is your business here?
“Saving your butt from the 100 or so drunks waiting to slam into your familys car out here tonight.”
Did you mean to say stopping thousands of innocent citizens with zero probable cause to snoop into their affairs, plant evidence, and fabricate “observations” about “glassy eyes” or “fast breathing” / “suspicious behavior” to effect baseless roadside detentions that gin up bail bonding and impound fees for their cronies while racking up OT to spike their double-dip pensions?
Get a clue before they lock you or worse, your kid, in a squalid cage with depraved deviants looking for a “snuggle.”
“Get a clue before they lock you or worse, your kid, in a squalid cage with depraved deviants looking for a “snuggle.””
I think you might want to reconsider your comments. First of all, I’m not sure what “deviants looking for a snuggle” even means but it sounds like a slander of misfits everywhere. Second, not all police officers who serve are gaming the system. Some of them want to SERVE and keep us safe.
Most peace officers mean well and conduct themselves with integrity. That does not mean we should accept random searches or physical examinations without a scintilla of reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause. The US Supreme Court’ holding that random DUI checkpoints are acceptable abridgment of Fourth Amendment protections is among the most egregious judicial error. Law enforcement officials have allowed mission creep to expand the scope of such inspections and also conduct license suspension, registration, and warrant checks which ordinarily can only take place if an officer initiates roadside detention (a traffic stop) upon reasonable suspicion (which itself is a very low standard).
There are obvious circumstances the authorities can initiate roadside detention to deter and investigate impaired driving. If an officer observes a motorist staggering to her car as she leaves a bar at 11 p.m. on a Saturday night, for example, there is a reasonable basis to initiate an investigation for impaired driving. Random checks virtually beg for opportunistic enforcement of unrelated laws without the meeting the constitutional standard that ordinarily applies.
All this over a simple DUI checkpoint notice?
I know…and it is a worthy endeavor. YOU are protecting me, but who is to save me from Donald Trump’s or George Wallace’s storm troopers. It’s a difficult choice in a time when the rule of law is itself under threat. When people of means suffer no consequences for wrongdoing (Weinstein, Eppstein, Trump). When law officers who stand in contempt of the law, Joe Arpaio, are pardoned by the Criminal in Chief of the US. It is a world on the verge of turning topsy turvy, no? And it’s not like we (people of a certain age or people who read books) haven’t seen this before. We know where tyranny leads. Now we do it again.
A police cordon and check for papers…regardless of its good intent is a terrifying prospect in any police state, now or tomorrow.
I do thank you and the other officers who serve and protect. I thank you very much for that service, but keep in mind that people of good judgment and good will can be replaced in a heartbeat. That is why Trump prefers “acting” directors of defense and homeland security to persons of good character who might be confirmed by consensus to permanent posts. Loyalty trumps all. Power trumps all.
I can’t believe a habitually lying narcissist with lacquer for hair could get us to this place – where the smallest disagreement turns into a dogfight with the craziest allegations getting spewed as if they have happened. Yes, the police sometimes exceed their powers. Yes, sometimes they lie. Yes, sometimes they do much worse. But we also have a citizenry that lies….. that thinks they can do nothing wrong…. that drinking and driving is a right….. and are apparently capable of going on with their lives after getting loaded on booze or their favorite pharmaceutical and killing people. I can put up with 5 minutes at a checkpoint if it saves someone. What I can’t stand is another news storey about another drunk driver killing a child or family.
I can put up with five minutes at a checkpoint if it saves someone too. People that don’t feel that way are self centered, and only concerned about themselves. The good news is most people are okay with DUI checkpoints. We understand that drunk driving is a serious offense that can easily kill, and we prefer that everyone make it home safely, and the drunk driver is arrested.
Me too.
Your stated goal of deterring and detecting impaired drivers is laudable and not in dispute.
Your reasoning, however, is woefully misguided and precisely the sort of naivety the invites police abuses. It is not “good news” that “most people” are okay with arbitrary police searches detentions. (I doubt that’s true.)
If true, that would terrible news. The issue is not whether you “can put up with five minutes at a checkpoint.” You are absolutely welcome to engage a police officer and even request an impairment test if that is your prerogative. (NOT LEGAL ADVICE!)
I take exception, however, to your crude, dismissive characterization of the community’s concern for our basic civil rights as “self centered.” Please educate yourself on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence before casting such pedestrian aspersions.
The core question is whether the stated goal justifies forfeiting everyone’s most fundamental constitutional rights. Secondarily, we must examine whether such abridging those rights even achieves the state goal.
Random roadside detentions to effect police searches of papers, effects, and persons without probable cause amounts to little more than opportunistic bullying.
Again, nobody here condones drunk driving or questions effective, constitutional law enforcement and judicial initiatives to deter and punish impaired drivers. The debate rests with the enforcement mechanism, not the policy goal.
I like the idea of sobriety checkpoints. If it gets one drunk off the road (that could kill your family and friends – or mine) it’s well worth it. Funding IS provided by a grant. I’m not sure what the “full disclosure” is all about…
I do always wonder why they announce these things ahead of time? Is it a legal thing?
Morning, RIF – Smart motorists and lawyers can and have argued that such a stop is a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. Preannouncements counter that argument – and apparently do little to affect the numbers of folks arrested for DUI (and other things) at these checkpoints.
40 years of driving and I’ve never been through a checkpoint. It could be because I’m usually not out much after dark. Early to bed, early to rise. 9 PM is past my bedtime.
The guys who see this after they get busted at this checkpoint must feel really really dumb afterward.